Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Donít Agree You Know Nothing
Darwin's God ^ | 01/10/2012 | Cornelius Hunter

Posted on 01/11/2012 8:47:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing. Not only that, but there are probably billions and billions of universes that have spontaneously arisen. Occasionally a universe happens to have all the right properties for life to arise spontaneously within it, and that would be us.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



Krauss, a theoretical physicist and head of The Origins Project at Arizona State University, is not the first evolutionist to defy the age-old wisdom that something does not come from nothing. World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking popularized the idea in a recent book he co-authored entitled The Grand Design.

Krauss and Hawking use gravitational theory and quantum mechanics to argue that, in fact, such spontaneous creation is all but inevitable. Their narratives appeal to graduate-level physics which most people do not understand, but the basic idea of a strictly naturalistic creation story goes back centuries.

The intellectual necessity of naturalism

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with the rise of modern science and the Enlightenment, the urge for strict naturalism was promoted by various Christian traditions. Both in England and on the continent, Christians were refining a range of theological views that required science to describe the world’s origins strictly in terms of natural law. The dozen or so views that emerged fell into two broad categories. One category dealt with the divine attributes while the other dealt with epistemology and man’s knowledge. For short, we may refer to them as the “greater god mandate” and the “intellectual necessity” for naturalism.

In each category a foundational theological view supported various specific arguments for naturalism. One argument from the intellectual necessity view, which became more clear in the eighteenth century, was that special divine action (or primary causation) interfered with scientific progress, or even made science impossible.

As Baden Powell had insisted, all of science depends on the principles of uniformitarianism. Darwin’s confidant J. D. Hooker was more direct. Though he found special creation and evolution at an empirical standoff, neither theory with a clear advantage, he opted for the latter for its “great organizing potential.” It was not that evolutionary theories were “the truest,” he wrote to William H. Harvey in 1859, “but because they do give you room to reason and reflect at present, and hopes for the future, whereas the old stick-in-the-mud doctrines … are all used up. They are so many stops to further inquiry; if they are admitted as truths, why there is an end of the whole matter, and it is no use hoping ever to get any rational explanation of origin or dispersion of species—so I hate them.”

A law-like origins of the world, on the other hand, supported the accrual of knowledge. Darwin enunciated this view when he explained that acceptance of his theory of evolution was less important than the rejection of special divine action:

Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the ‘Vestiges,’ by Mr. Wallace or by myself, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry.

The rejection of special divine action was equated with scientific progress. Here Darwin extrapolated his metaphysical argument to arrive at the ultimate proof against creation. His main point, that no creator ever would have intended for this world, was now protected against counter arguments because such counter arguments would be unscientific.

Darwin repeatedly used metaphysical arguments against creation to prop up evolution, but now he declared that counter arguments would be out-of-bounds since they were unscientific. Darwin correctly observed that creation and its supporting arguments hinge on one’s concept of God, but he conveniently forgot that arguments against creation equally hinge on one’s concept of God. For Darwin, it was fair game to argue against creation but not for it. Thus, evolution was the correct scientific conclusion. In fact, what good science required was a naturalistic explanation, regardless of what particular explanation was used.

Since Darwin this theological argument has gained strength. For Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased.

In his text Paul Moody explains that without strict naturalism one does not have an explanation at all:

it amounts to saying, ‘Things are this way because they are this way.’ Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the Creator chose to follow one pattern in creating diverse animals rather than to use differing patterns.

Likewise Tim Berra warns that we must not be led astray by the apparent design in biological systems, for it “is not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws, of water seeking its level. An appeal to a supernatural explanation is unscientific and unnecessary—and certain to stifle intellectual curiosity and leave important questions unasked and unanswered. ” In fact, “Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. As far as science is concerned, creationism is a sterile concept.”

Lawrence Krauss and the intellectual necessity

And so it is not surprising to hear Lawrence Krauss, at the 3:14 mark in the above lecture, rehearse the same, centuries-old, intellectual necessity theology in support of his conviction that something, in fact the entire universe, just happened to spontaneously arise from nothing:

I am going to a talk about our modern picture of cosmology and how it has changed our view of the universe—the past and the future, and in some sense how that picture is clearly remarkable. And far more remarkable than the fairly tales that are made up in most religious situations.

But the key point is mystery. That is one of the things that makes science so special I think. It is that scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That’s a key part of science. The excitement of learning about the universe. And that again is so different than the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything, although clearly knowing nothing.

There you have it. Without naturalism there is not only no excitement, there is no knowledge. We are left “apparently knowing everything” but “clearly knowing nothing.” Given this truth, then of course, we must have evolution.

Everything came from nothing and if you don’t agree, then you know nothing. Religion drives science, and it matters.


TOPICS: Astronomy; History; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; nothing; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 01/11/2012 8:47:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just words.....


2 posted on 01/11/2012 8:51:20 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m not sure I follow the logic of Lawrence Krauss...

If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

He seems to be attributing creative powers to emergence, without any evidence nor cause-and-effect relationship.


3 posted on 01/11/2012 8:52:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

One thing is for sure. Nothing is for sure....


4 posted on 01/11/2012 8:53:20 PM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

I’m not sure I follow the logic of Lawrence Krauss...

If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

He seems to be attributing creative powers to emergence, without any evidence nor cause-and-effect relationship.


5 posted on 01/11/2012 8:53:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Nothing from nothing leaves nothing/gotta have somethin’/if you wanna be with me...’’.


6 posted on 01/11/2012 8:57:32 PM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Every Sunday we Orthodox pray in Divine Liturgy about—and to—God who “brought us from non-existence into being”.


7 posted on 01/11/2012 8:59:13 PM PST by Honorary Serb (Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t agree.

And so according to this clown, I know nothing. But nothing turns into everything so I must know everything - or at least I will know everything as soon as everything comes from the nothing I know. Or something like that.

(Oh man, my brain hurts.)


8 posted on 01/11/2012 9:02:39 PM PST by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

But something had to be here before nothing was here otherwise there would be no place for nothing to come to.


9 posted on 01/11/2012 9:03:19 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("Climate Change" my a.... All weather is local.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Don’t Agree You Know Nothing

I prefer the version that has been around for years; decades?

"At first there was nothing.
Then it exploded,"

10 posted on 01/11/2012 9:03:32 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The only commonality amongst men is not knowing the answer to the big question. Faith is good but it's called 'faith' for a reason. It's ironic that so very many millions have killed and have died upon the insistence that they know.

11 posted on 01/11/2012 9:04:57 PM PST by I see my hands (The old sod ne'er shall be forgot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That the universe arose from nothing is pretty consistent with Christian teaching which is that God created everything ex nihilo, (out of nothing). His problem is that he cuts the creator out of the equation and supposes that somehow matter can act, (self create), and do so before it exists, which is astonishingly silly.


12 posted on 01/11/2012 9:05:53 PM PST by Busywhiskers ("Once you have wrestled, everything else in life is easy" -Dan Gable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Aristotle is throwing up the bullshit flag


13 posted on 01/11/2012 9:06:15 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” I say, “I think I think, therefore I think I am.”


14 posted on 01/11/2012 9:07:45 PM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Best anti-Darwin arguement presented is in “Godless” Ann Coulter


15 posted on 01/11/2012 9:08:53 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

Clarification... “I think, therefore I am” Rene Descarte


16 posted on 01/11/2012 9:12:07 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I was in the era of endoctrinization that included Locke, Berkley, and Hume, the empiricists, if you can believe that.


17 posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:06 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing.”

So? I believe the universe came from nothing, but I'm a creationist. The universe sprang into existence when God willed it. Isn't that pretty much what the Bible says?

At some point, evolution or creation both come down to faith. This universe is all chance, or it was created. If it was created, and I believe it was, then trying to define or fully understand the Creator is a fool's errand. Why? Because our measuring tools are based entirely on this universe. A universe Creator would be beyond time, length, height, width, mass, etc. The existence or lack of a creator cannot be proved using earthly measures. At some point, it comes down to faith.

For me, the Bible offers a compelling, plausible explanation for why we're here. I believe Christ was telling the truth. Therefore, I believe.

18 posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:26 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something...or, something coming from nothing is outside man's experience and understanding - hence, there is something beyond the nothingness from which something came, maybe we might call it God......
19 posted on 01/11/2012 9:22:48 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

What is this? An Abbott & Costello schtick?

( ^8}

20 posted on 01/11/2012 9:23:09 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson